Funding And Monitoring. Cobbling it together Focus on watersheds and streams in North Bay

Transcription

1 Funding And Monitoring Cobbling it together Focus on watersheds and streams in North Bay

2 Method of Research

3 Acknowledgements Slides from Napa RCD, Sonoma Ecology Center, Cal Trout, SPAWN, Marin RCD, Rutherford Dust, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Laurel Collins Information from all of the above and Marin County, Coastal Conservancy, CEMAR, Terressa Sciences THANKS!!

4 Monitoring Systematically sampling to to detect a change in a physical, chemical or biological parameter

5 Types of Monitoring ( MacDonald, 1991) Status and Trend: Characterizes existing biota, chemical or physical conditions (i.e. current fish distributions in a creek) Implementation ( compliance): Effectiveness and validation: : Did project have desired biological/physical effect?

6 Scales of monitoring Regional Surface Water Ambient Monitoring (SWAMP) Tomales Bay Pathogen Monitoring Watershed Stream- headwaters to mouth Stream reach Habitat unit

7 Funding Sources small and scattered, but significant monitoring is occurring Most grant funding is associated with implementation grants Monitoring for Project implementation and effectiveness: up to 10% of grant amount Limited grant funding for baseline or watershed scale monitoring and assessments- other sources exist

8 No Single Model Programs in each watershed have different funders and specialize in different parameters Commonalities Creative Institutionally dedicated to monitoring Staff dedicated to monitoring Collaborative with many partners

9 Examples Napa RCD Sonoma Ecology Center SPAWN Marin RCD Marin County

10 Napa RCD On-going Monitoring Smolt Trapping; since 2009 Spawner surveys since 2004 Snorkel surveys- Rutherford- since 2005 Rutherford Project Monitoring Stream gauge monitoring 2 year stream sediment monitoring: gravel permiability and Redd scour

11

12

13 Smolt Trap Funding Gasser foundation, Napa River Steelhead Wildlife Conservation Commission- fines Napa county JPA ( Joint funding County and Cities) CIAP- Offshore Oil Drilling CDF&G-contingency funds

14

15

16 Rutherford Project Monitoring Collaborative FUNDERS: Rutherford Dust Society- special assessment District Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District- Measure A Tax Funds JPA-County and Cities Wildlife Conservation Board Wildlife Conservation Commission, Napa County Grants: SWRCB, AARA, EPA, CA. Dept. Parks and Rec.

17 Monitoring Plan Components Annual Stream Reach Survey Channel Transect Surveys and Local Longitudinal Profiles Vegetation Establishment Surveys Planted Areas Landowner Participation Surveys Air Photo Analysis

18

19

20 Regional Rainfall and Stream Monitoring System. 23 gauge sites- 10 monitored by RCD Funded by Cities Napa county Flood control and Water Conservation District RCD

21 Napa RCD Success Committed to creating sound, scientific monitoring program Local reputation for scientific, cost effective, unbiased Educated community- have convinced land owners that good monitoring is in their best interest Dedicated scientific staff and grant writers- willing to bang into walls!

22

23 Sonoma Ecology Center Long History of Monitoring and GIS Streambed Sediment and Source Assessment Steelhead Limiting Factors Analysis StreamTemperature Monitoring BMI Monitoring Stream Gauge and rainfall

24 Current Monitoring Stream geomorphic monitoring and analysis to prioritize restoration - partner Laurel Collins SWRCB CWA 319 grant ( 2 year) EPA San Francisco Bay Funding ( through San Francisco Estuary Project)

25 Geomorphic Analysis- Stream Stability Classes Throughout Sonoma Creek watershed- select reaches Channel Cross sections and longitudinal profile Measures of bank stability Streambed sediment Large Woody Debris GIS

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 Low Flow Monitoring- funded by Sonoma Water Agency

33 SPAWN- Focus San Geronimo Creek Fish rescue/relocation-since since 1999 Spawning surveys: : since 2001 Out-migrant smolt study- since 2006 Water Quality: (TMDL) Ongoing funded by RWQCB ( Prop 13)

34

35

36 Staffing and Funding Work done by trained staff, Americorps,, and volunteers Most of funding from general donations and private foundations

37 Riparian Zone Monitoring Plan Marin RCD and UCCE- an exercise in collaboration Development Funded by SWRCB Prop 50 and AARA Monitoring funded by Marin County, implementation grants ( SWRCB 319, Coastal Conservancy)

38 Implementation, Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring

39 Photo monitoring

40

41

42 Measurement

43

44 Collaboration

45 Marin County Watershed Assessments existing data and filling in gaps Historical Ecology Projects Fish Passage Barrier Analysis

46 Funding County and cities CDF&G Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Project ( EPA funding) North Bay Watershed Association San Francisco Estuary Institute RWQCB Long-term: Assessment Districts to implement

47 Success Despite large barriers to Success Institutional and individual dedication and commitment to monitoring Creativity Cobble cobble cobble- every little morsel Sound Scientific basis for programs and strong scientific staff Collaboration Community support

48 Challenges Funding sources small and scattered Funding duration Short Qualified staff retention Data Management and analysis Access Need hypothesis based monitoring Lack of integrated watershed scale assessments of fundamental processes that evaluate cause and effect

49 Wrong Threat, Wrong Result

50 Monitoring Programs can lead to improved environment

51 MacDonald, Lee, Alan W. Smart, and Robert C. Wissmar Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA/910/ May 1991.

52 Reference MacDonald, Lee, Alan W. Smart, and Robert C. Wissmar Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.EPA/910/ May 1991.